What exactly is meant by "missing a drug test"

Just to refresh everybody's memory. From the first day of the soap opera:

Definition of missing a drug test:

1. Drug testers notify the Greek coaches that they will be testing athletes in the Olympic Village in 2 hours.

2. Greek officials tell Greek sprinters to get the hell out of there.

3. Greek sprinters go to their home, then on to their coach's house to concoct the scheme.

4. Greeek sprinters fake motorcycle accident.

5. Greek sprinters protected in hospital until things can get worked out.

Clear enough

I'm beginning to agree with thinitru in some respects, despite his argumentative style. I'm not sure if he really believes anything he says or he just enjoys being the center of attention. Anyway, I think it will get to the point where all this testing is just going to get too expensive. He is also right in that it is too easy for some countries to cheat (that is already clear from these Olympics and I don't even follow the sport that closely). What is happening right now is that those with sophisticated doping regimes and money can win, along with those in cheating countries. (Anybody can fill in the blanks). The drug testers are protecting the super cheaters from competition.

I haven't read much of the argument about legalities, only enough to realize that thinitru has no idea about them. Every day people "agree to give up their rights" whether it be have someone watch you do it in a bottle or have someone check your bag when you get on an airplane.

The law must be compliant with overidding human rights legislation.Thus the baggage handling etc does comply.As for viewed urination;this does not exist anywhere else.

The core problem will be with whereabouts forms and constant hourly updates as to where you are.This is a clear invasion of privacy and family life(sec8 EHRA).It can only allowed for the greater good AND, this is the big AND, when every person "in the popuation group" is subject to the same invasions.

How can I be in the limelight??

As it happens I do believe what I say,but wish I could say it better and give the sources for my opinions.

Part of it will be that it will be too expensive.A billion dollars per year and going upwards.

Originally control looked dead simple.We all know what a banned drug looks like and lets put the same controls as in industry.

We all know better now,that why so much of what we hear is PR based and does not begin to get at the non wada compliant countries.

Your Q;like all in sport I think enhancers should be used and indeed are allowed.The Q is which;this is what needs debating.Regarding the controls.Thre are many thing is society we dont like but the controls and their limitations are set in law,consitution and convention.I ask no more for athletes who by the way are neither guilty nor under suspicion.Do you know any other area of life with these controls.It is only a matter of time prior to examination in court.

Finland government said in its submission to WADA 2 that it would take 5 yrs of constutional change to make WADA legal;even if they they wanted to.One thus question the meaning of signing to WADA.A diplomatic fudge methinks.[/quote]

If you think they should all be allowed, then the debate shifts and you should try to get that passed.

As for the areas of life with these types of restrictions:

1) Military

2) Many sensitive government jobs

"1) OOC testing is random within the pool. Just like some companies randomly test employees, but not all employees in an industry"

I thought I would remake the point about target testing in case you had not got it first time.

From the Irish Times

Information is being compiled from all quarters and is now being actively pursued and acted upon. "Of course we actively target test," said Ljungqvist. "Why shouldn't we? We can identify risk groups through experience, we get information through active research and we are also assisted by others

"As for the areas of life with these types of restrictions:

1) Military

2) Many sensitive government jobs"

Your point is note quite valid.

There have been loads of cases, in your examples, in the UK of rights been withheld and court action and damages following.

And those that have been accepted have been so on the basis that there is no selective targeting of groups or sub groups.

All laws must comply with human rights laws.

Thinitthru,

Yes, it can be argued that the testing controls are overbearing, totalitarian and demeaning, but if athletes don’t like them, no one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to compete in athletics.

Sure, viewed urination might be humiliating, but some athletes have tried to cheat the system by various means of hiding a clean sample on their person. So what are the testers supposed to do when some athletes resort to such antics?

In Canada, when you sign the membership agreement with the Provincial Governing Body, you agree to be subject to their doping controls. It would seem to me that if you don’t want to be subject to the controls you simply don’t join and you find something else to do with your life. You claim that these agreements and controls are against human rights laws and you cannot sign away your rights. I’m not a lawyer or a human rights expert, but if these agreements are against human rights laws, why haven’t they been challenged and overturned by the courts? I am not aware of a doping control violation in athletics that has been overturned because of human rights concerns. I would think that competing in athletics under the jurisdiction of a NGB is a privilege, not a right.

What are you trying to say about a debate being needed on which enhancers are to be allowed? Are you proposing a list of “approved” enhancers? How on earth are you going to monitor that and make sure people are only using “approved” enhancers without having doping controls? How can you have effective doping control without out-of-competition testing? How can you have effective out-of-competition testing without tracking the whereabouts of the athletes?

It would seem to me that we have two choices. Continue along the path we are, doing our best to eliminate drugs, or we just throw in the towel and let them do what ever the hell they want. The problem with letting them do what ever they want is that many of the athletes who end using them are young impressionable kids. They would end being guinea pigs in an experiment in which the long term health effects would not be known. And I for one would lose a lot of interest in entering the local road races.

Regards